|Shoebox Joe |
Or you could just grow your shit with effort like you just did you lazy cartoon dog.
|WHO WANTS DESSERT |
Wow, you mean to tell me that the woman whose mediocre, masturbatory cartoon movie got way more attention and money than it deserved because she framed its release as a "FUCK COPYRIGHTS" statement panders to the people who supported her?!
OH MAN CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT HER OPINIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH HER ACTIONS.
Groups like the RIAA could make a lot of progress if they acknowledged this simple fact. Instead of misrepresenting copying as stealing, which starts the debate off from a disingenuous place and thus nukes their credibility right off the bat, they might try explaining why they think copying itself is wrong, instead of trying to make it something it's not.
Or they could just keep doing what they're doing and continue losing millions more every year.
It's not all bad. When you're 20 years older than you are now (2030) you'll be able to sing Happy Birthday To You again without having to pay royalty fees anymore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_stat us)
poorwill: Only if you're stealing physical goods. Information is not a physical good. Thinking in that slippery-slope, we could get to the point where we have to pay to use our sensory organs.
splatterbabble: stop reading slashdot
what's happened to copyright in recent years is unfair but ripping off people because they made the mistake of wanting to create something non-physical does nothing to rectify that.
you are why drm exists. drm is your fault.
(which is not to say that i don't download shit, i just don't equate "information wants to be free" with "things belong to me just because i want them to")
See, I don't download things. I have mp3s, but they're all ripped from CDs that I've bought or been given. I believe in supporting artists. I go to shows (ie, leave the house) for music, art, plays, and dances.
What I don't support are corporate lawyers trying so hard to make a buck out of nothing, out of confusion, and/or out of mistrust.
None of your other retarded opinions are compatible with this perfectly reasonable opinion. Sort your shit out and maybe I'll think about not calling you a dumbfuck.
Wait: Replace 'perfectly' with 'more'. Paying for music isn't 'supporting' the artist - it's paying what you owe. You aren't a wonderful, morally upright person just for doing that - that's the bare minimum.
Ad hominem is the weapon of the defenseless man.
Your opinion is a metaphor, which already is a strike against your logic, and you're using the word "piracy" which is not a valid term for this situation. So, you've built a strawman and you're attacking people that disagree. You should be a pundit. It would be lucrative for you.
|Sudan no1 |
WHAT IF YOU COPY MONEY HUH??
5 for evil I guess.
Boy that jamboree in a sunny utopia at the end sure does look a lot like the lifestyle your averaged signed talent enjoys in an economy where musical acts can only make money by touring endlessly.
Five for evil.
-1 for not using music than infringed on copyrights, i mean this thing has no teeth what-so-EVER.
Why not tour consistently? If your catalog is so good maybe your indie label would shift a few more units.
Face it. The internet brought the concept of big studios "funding and promoting dreck" to its knees. For every Bono we starve, ten folk singers get a better chance at feeding themselves. For every gangster rap video we deny the creation of, ten thousand inner city youths don't adopt the bling and bitches attitude.
Bono is dreck and you are starving him by listening to his music and not paying for it? Yeah, that sounds like Internet logic.
Why those characters aren't Mickey Mouse is beyond me.
Yet you still listen to him. Only this way, you don't have to pay to listen to him, YOU'RE MAKING HIM STARVE! JUSTICE IS YOURS!
It's a consistent logical position as long as you apply it to computer games as well. "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, it was total garbage!!!"
Also, anyone implying that indie bands can even consider not touring, album sales or no, doesn't know what they are talking about.
unknown rebel :
Bono is not starving. Metallica is not starving. NO ONE with an expansive pre-millennial catalog is starving. But things have gotten a lot harder for the rest of the industry.
The only musicians making money right now are either manufactured by the largest record labels OR developed their careers prior to file sharing.
Your fantasy about the music industry being democratized is at best a Pyrrhic one. While the notion of 'lots of people releasing music and therefore being musicians' is enchanting, the truth is it is simply not a way to make a living any more unless you are either already established or The Jonas Brothers.
I am a music video director and this shit is ugly. There are so many good musical acts that evaporate AFTER recording good material because constantly touring is simply impractical.
Of course, I bet alot of them have HD's full of pirated music.
What a predicament.
Oh, and the money made by the sale of a song or TV show isn't generally made by the artists. They've already been paid by another company, the label, that then re-sells it through syndication, payola, and physical propagation on some form of media (CDs or DVDs). The artists, if they've been in the situation to sell their material to labels that know how to make money on it, make "royalties" but it's really not like they're doing anything to earn those royalties.
If Cliff Richards was actively selling his music to the Beastie Boys (for example) he would be entitled to the money he made. If his record label did the sell, they would be entitled, but they would give Cliff a tiny percentage of the money they made as a treat. Cliff didn't directly earn the money, but I'm sure he enjoys it.
Philanthropy, on the other hand, is a wholly awesome endeavor and should be complimented at every turn.
My point is the mode of the animation is smarmy and false.
The intended comedy of the animation exploits the obvious fact that copying the theft are two different words with two different meanings.
The animation condescends to explain the difference through childlike animation and a simple, childlike song, implying that legislation against copyright violations is absurd and that the people who disagree with her need to be spoken to like children.
The irony here is that the economics of the entertainment industry are not that simple and that while filesharing may be a utopia for consumers there is a much larger picture that makes her childlike animation assume a new and unintended vector of parody: of her own understanding of the concepts she claims to understand so plainly.
One of Nina's points is that most music and movies don't make any money for the artist anyway; might as well let it be legal for it to be given away for free, at least after a reasonable amount of time.
all of you are just making shit up re: the industry.
the music industry sucked before audio copying was instantaneous, and it sucks more now. the internet isn't worth much as exposure because there were only 5 people that cared about unsigned bands to begin with, and if you're signed and not touring, you'd better be the next beatles.
splatter: getting paid for TV usage, etc, is why artists sign up with ASCAP and BMI. their job is to shake down the tv station, and then they keep some of it and send you some of it. payola is a separate thing entirely.
and i am all for shrinking copyright terms. the only people that aren't are copyright lawyers, and they are scum.
|unknown rebel |
I thought it was by that guy from Something Awful who straddles the line between awesome and infinitely punchable.
I'd like to thank the Adobe corporation for sharing some 0 worth of their ideas with me
Communication is free. 0s and 1s are communication. The 0s and 1s that make up the software are free.
You're probably not claiming that you've invented Photoshop and you're probably not selling it under your own label/brand. That's what Copyright law is there to prevent.
When you buy a book, you're purchasing the physical material, not the words. When you read a book at the library, you're not stealing the content. That's where Copyright law has been abused.
It's funny to know that people like Splaterbabble exist.
splatterbabble, you are an almighty dumbfuck.
Sorry, I believe in copyleft.
I'm writing this on a Linux machine built with free software that no one will ever ask me to pay for. I purchased the machine itself, which is a fine machine, but the software I have not spent a penny on, and it's all legal because the writers understand the intangible nature of information.
If you think I'm a dumbfuck now, you should read "In the Beginning there was the Command Line" by Neil Stephenson.
Basically this theory punishes people for trying to make a dollar being creative in a modern medium.
splatterbabble: Do you believe the intangible information in my bank account deserves to be free? Because fuck you, you obstinate, delusional cultist.
poorwill: you might want to switch banks if you feel their cryptographic systems aren't up to snuff. Any yahoo with any ability to listen to phone/internet traffic can pull the 0s and 1s from it for free. Deciphering the cryptography is another story, but getting that garbled mess is free and easy. It's not hacking; cracking that crypto is hacking, but it's a process of information handling.
Your bank info is freely available to those people with the tools to get it. Whether they understand it or not and if they can manipulate it is an entirely different matter. Hopefully, though, your bank has taken measures to hire people that take security seriously.
So in other words the right you have to take something is directly proportional to how easy it is to do so. You are not talking about ethics, you are talking about a lack of ethics.
No one takes anything in copying. The original is still there and unmodified. There's a concept gap at play here.
You are taking a copy.
Yes I heard the song.
Additionally you are claiming that the only ethical difference between copying various things for free is the ease with which they are copied. The only difference between copying a book in a library and copying a file is the ease with which it can be done. This is a 'might makes right' argument.
Do you understand that since the advent of art an artist has had to make money to pay for what he does? Do you understand that you are basically completely erasing the societal value of creativity, and drawing a line between modes of creativity that is solely based on how easy they are to reproduce?
I didn't think I was going in that direction. Copying a book is easy. Copying a tree, not so easy. Maybe I'm wrong for believing that "intellectual property" is a farce, the ultimate something-for-nothing, but that's the stance I'm taking.
The ethics of the situation is that I can't claim that I wrote "Blue Suede Shoes" even if I can reproduce it. Additionally, it would be wrong for me to make money off of playing it without consulting the person that wrote/performed it, or their representative first. But, I can play any song I want without having to pay for it if I am doing so for my entertainment and use.
If I were to make money with a software product (I use Logic Studio, for example) I feel that it would behoove me to pay for it. I own a copy of Logic Studio. I paid a lot of money for said copy and it came directly from the manufacturer. It is an active tool in my profession and I understand the moral point of paying for that tool since I make money with it. If I were to sample music, it would be the same scenario.
BUT, if I were to make a back-up of my software, I should be able to do so. This is where the copying comes into play and thus the crux of my argument. If I want to make photocopies of my books, I should be allowed to. It all comes back to the legal battle over videotape recording destroying the movie industry (which it never did).
This 'make money off of' stuff is bull. If you *use* something, like if you listen to a record or play a game, that you copied but didn't pay for, you are doing something that is wrong. You aren't giving the artist their due. Selling pirated works would also be bad, but a different kind of bad.
Are you implying that it's either morally or legally ok to have a pirated copy of Logic if you never make money from it?
Two kinds of linux users: people who care about software freedom and people who like free shit. Everyone thinks they're in the first group, so you can't take their word for it. All you can really do is see if they pirate shit.
Yeah, but I worked all summer for that bike and you sat on the Internet jacking off to Tina Tequila pictures. I learned a valuable lesson about earning and the value of a dollar while you learned that I'm a sucker.
This chick's gotta be trolling.
I hate the RIAA and "no such thing as piracy" wankers equally. They both benefit greatly from devaluing other people's creations.
Brought to you by someone who has yet to be paid for their art.
So dupes should get five stars and favorited because someone copied someone else's link?
My average would certainly be higher if that were the case.
Holy shit you're an idiot.
First of all, insults are not the same thing as ad hominem - I insulted you. Big difference.
Second, I was using a metaphor to describe what piracy is morally equivalent to. That is not my argument in toto.
Copying in itself is just copying. Publishers copy their own works to distribute it. Nobody is saying *that's* wrong. Copying a work that you are not entitled to is piracy - that's what people object to (and even then I make dispensations). You seem incapable of making this distinction because you are a raging fucktard who loves the smell and taste of his own shit.
That was meant to be a reply to splatterbabble in Xenocide's thread.
Define "entitlement" in regards to what can be copied.
Additionally, copying, bootlegging, and piracy are different things, no matter what you may believe.
I meant that on pretty much every piece of recorded copyrighted media, it says you're not allowed to make copies and shit, except in a handful of special cases. By consuming something that's copyrighted, you are entering into a contract with the copyright holder. Copies for personal use - say, converting to MP3s, or even just to give something a demo - I don't have a problem with. So basically: If whoever is producing the original work doesn't want you to make use of that work by consuming unauthorised copies, that would mean you are not entitled to do that.
I think you don't understand copyright law. I deal with this on a daily basis (though not from a litigation perspective). Copyright law started with Charles Dickens getting pissed that other people were (physically) stealing his work and then saying that they created it and thus sold it. That's where it started, over who was to credit for the creation.
Where we are now has nothing to do with claims of authorship, but over "ownership" of 0s and 1s. All the copyright info presented in EULAs and so forth are functionally meaningless outside of the scope of authenticity and resale.
That being said, I don't download things that aren't intended to be distributed that way (ie, I download web page info, but not movies outside of YouTube and other clip content).
Well, I hate the way copyright law in the States is - there are a ton of problems there. But my argument from the start has been that it's just not ethical to copy somebody's work without compensating them, if they made the work available on the condition that they be compensated. That's my position in a nutshell.
We are only having this argument because of your loopy views and your misinterpretation of mine.
You have said some things that confirm that you disagree with my perspective, and other things that suggest you are sympathetic (for some reason that isn't consistent with your other views) . You are just kind of all over the place.
So to clarify once again: Copying is copying. You can copy your own works, and any works you have been authorised to copy and that's aok.
Piracy is copying works that you are not authorised to copy for some malign use. I wouldn't use a pejorative term like that for copying stuff you already bought for your own use, or if you just want to try something out even if some legal systems don't see it that way.
|La Loco |
I think it's time that these pirates steal all the music and hold it for ransom. And the the president of the earth will have to pay a bajillion space dollars. From the future.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|